Yes, something to certainly be proud of!...As well as Jacki Jacki Lambie!

I don't know: I give you a free kick, and you land it below the belt! Where's the Marquis of Queensborough when you need him? Just the same, I wouldn't swap our one dopey politician (OK, maybe two) for your parliament of rogues.

I think the ambassadors only know what they've been told. If there is a change of plans, that can make them look bad and sometimes there are things kept secret from them. Kenspo seemed to be quite surprised to find out that there was a K-1 sequel in the works.

I have no idea on the firmware update, but my guess is that there will have to be one, at a minimum, to incorporate the DFA * primes. It may do some other things like add mechanical stabilization with video, but certainly it won't include features to bring a K-1 up to a K-1 II level.

I think the decision to postpone or cancel the K-1's firmware upgrade and push forward the K-1 Mark II's announcement is a marketing decision:

The launch of a new model procures more media coverage and boosts sales more than a mere firmware, however dramatic the improvements offered by the latter can be.

It also helps maintain steadily high prices (and unit margins) when you launch a new model quite early in the life cycle of the existing one rather than discounting the current one to revive interest.

Given the above I wouldn't have too high expectations concerning the novelties in K-1 Mark II in comparison to K-1. Many of them should correspond to the improvements and additional functionalities the new firmware would have offered to the K-1, i.e. be software driven.

Given the above I wouldn't have too high expectations concerning the novelties in K-1 Mark II in comparison to K-1. Many of them should correspond to the improvements and additional functionalities the new firmware would have offered to the K-1, i.e. be software driven.

I too do not expect a K-1 Mark II to be significantly different to the K-1.

If, however, the differences were only based on software and it would have been possible to bring the K-1 to the same level as the K-1 Mark II by just releasing an (originally planned to be released very soon) firmware, that would be the pinnacle of lameness.

Contrast this to Cactus who sold the V6II as a trigger that has no P-TTL capabilities except for HSS. Instead of offering a successor model that offers P-TTL features like second-curtain sync and automated metering, they offered a free firmware upgrade for the existing V6II hardware. In other words, one initially bought an HSS trigger -- without any promise for future functionality whatsoever -- and later one got upgraded to a full-blown P-TTL trigger.

What Pentax should do is to refine the hardware a bit (perhaps more than a bit if they want to sell to K-1 owners as well) but keep K-1 owners happy. If you only have a small user base, it does not look like a smart move to me to alienate it by charging ~$2000 for a firmware upgrade.

If, however, the differences were only based on software and it would have been possible to bring the K-1 to the same level as the K-1 Mark II by just releasing an (originally planned to be released very soon) firmware, that would be the pinnacle of lameness.

You know my standard answer for "this would be truly lame"? "Oh, then they won't do it, right?" - followed by "but why are we discussing this non-possibility?"
It makes no sense to launch - with all the logistic included - a new model instead of simply releasing a firmware. So they won't do it. If we want to speculate, let's speculate on what they might do.

I don't see any conspiracy to force people to buy the new K-1ii by holding back a free-upgrade for the old K-1.

If that was Ricoh's plan they never would have spent the time and money to create an upgrade for the K-1 and test it in the first place.

It's more likely that testing of the new K-1 firmware revealed a serious bug that Ricoh does not have the time & labor to fix now (if a fix is even possible) because they are very busy trying the finish the software for the K-1ii.